Oswald’s “Historic Diary”

The conventional wisdom

The Warren Report reconstructed Oswald’s defection and his thoughts & activities during his time in the Soviet Union by utilizing Oswald’s “Historic Diary,” which purportedly was Oswald’s contemporaneous documentation of events

The Evidence

Upon careful evaluation, Oswald’s “diary” reflects information that could only have become known after the supposed time of the entries. Expert handwriting analysis establishes that the “diary” was not an accumulation of random entries each entry having been made on the date indicated contemporaneous with the events being recorded.

Query:

The determination that Oswald’s “diary”, upon which so much reliance has been placed in the reconstructing the defection, is not a diary at all, and is in fact a phony. calls into question the entire Warren Report reconstruction of Oswald’s life in Russia.

As well it gives rise to the following disturbing questions: when was the “diary” written?

– whose purposes did this phony diary serve?

The Motorcade

The conventional wisdom:

Chapter VI of the Warren Report which is entitled “Investigation of Possible Conspiracy” discusses the selection of the motorcade route. The conclusion stated is that since the route for the Kennedy motorcade was not announced until November 19, Oswald could not have known that on October 16 when he took the job at the Book Depository. Thus, the Warren Report conclusion was that Oswald’s employment in the Depository was wholly unrelated to the President’s trip to Dallas.

Since then, the conventional wisdom has been that since Oswald could not have known of the motorcade route onto Elm Street at the time he was hired at the Book Depository on October 16, it must follow that the only conclusion must be that there was no conspiracy

The Evidence

The September 26 issue of the Dallas Morning News printed an article stating that the President would visit major cities of the state on Nov. 21 and 22. Whatever other cities would be visited, it was therefore known on September 26 that President Kennedy was coming to Dallas. President Kennedy was notorious for his penchant for open roofed motorcades.

Dealey Plaza was part of the traditional parade/motorcade route through Dallas. Main Street was universally known to be the best choice for this in that it went through the heart of the city, flanked on either side by tall buildings which maximized the opportunity for large numbers of people to see the parade. Thus, on September 26, everyone in the city would have know that whatever its destination, any motorcade in Dallas was going to go through Dealey Plaza.

Had the alternative site for the luncheon, the Women’s Building, had been selected, the Presidential motorcade would still have traversed Dealey Plaza on Main Street, the same route used for a motorcade in 1936 for President Roosevelt. This alternate route would have made a shot from the Book Depository more difficult but certainly not impossible.

Even the Warren Commission apologists do not claim that Oswald would not have attempted to shoot President Kennedy unless he knew in advance that the shot would be easier and that he would be successful.

Query:

Obviously, this piece of the evidence does not in and of itself prove that there was a conspiracy. However, to the extent that this piece of the conventional wisdom is an underpinning for the “ultimate verdict” that Lee Harvey Oswald was some crazed lone gunman, perhaps the “ultimate verdict” needs some rethinking.

Oswald’s Motive For Killing The President

The conventional wisdom

The Warren Report essentially concludes that President Kenney would not have been murdered but for a hostile, resentful sociopath trying to find a place in history.

As distinguished from the facts of the assassination itself, an extremely large portion of the Warren Report is devoted to Oswald focusing on those items that it is urged make him capable of killing Kennedy. Essentially the theme is that because of the implied motive they attribute to Oswald, he therefore had to be the killer. Motive proves guilt.

The evidence

The evidence is that there were some people in America with proven records of vicious tendencies who had very real and frequently voiced motives to kill the President.

Amongst them were Carlos Marcello, Santos Trafficante and other members of organized crime who were being hounded by the Kennedy Administration crackdown on crime and crooked labor kingpin Jimmy Hoffa who was in a blood feud with the Kennedy brothers

Amongst them were some of the more violent elements of the anti-Castro Cuban activists who felt bitterly betrayed by Kennedy for the Bay of Pigs and the “no invasion’ pledge made to Russia in ending the Cuban Missile Crisis. Interestingly enough, organized crime and certain anti-Castro Cuban activists had been united in interest by the CIA in anti-Castro assassination attempts.

Santos Trafficante told a prominent Cuban exile, Jose Aleman that “Kennedy’s not going to make it to the election. He is going to get hit.”’

Joseph Milteer, a right-wing extremist was secretly tape recorded by a Miami police informant, William Somersett, stating that Kennedy would be assassinated on a trip to Florida by a high-powered rifle from an office building and that “They will pick up someone within hours afterward just to throw the public off”

Query

If “motive proves guilt,” how does one dismiss people with proven records of viciousness and stated plans to kill the President in precisely the manner that it happened, down to picking someone up within hours afterwards “just to throw the publc off?”